Jim Inhofe: “If I might add an additional comment to address the Senator from Idaho's question, I want to assure my colleagues that I…”

“If I might add an additional comment to address the Senator from Idaho's question, I want to assure my colleagues that I share their concern that there is evidence of potential harm to Americans from exposure to fine particles. I want to know what kinds of particulates cause health problems. And I want to know where those particulates are and what are the best ways to reduce them. I would note for the Senator from Idaho that the chairman of the subcommittee stated earlier the court order does not require the EPA to propose a change in the particulate standard. The EPA can satisfy its obligations by proposing not to change the particulate standard until there is a better understanding about which particulates cause health effects, and where those particulates are prevalent in unhealthful levels. I would like to add that the Clinton Administration's Executive Order or Regulatory Review states the Administration's own regulatory philosophy as requiring agencies that are deciding whether and how to regulate must 'assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.' I believe the only prudent course would be for EPA to include consideration of retaining the current particulate standard in its proposed rule. In following this path, progress will continue to be made by the ongoing implementation of the existing Clean Air Act while the necessary research is being conducted to address the unanswered questions.”